[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nietzsche and Crypto Anarchy (fwd)
I forwarded Mr. May's post to a buddy of mine, Ronald Carrier, who is
getting his Piled Higher and Deeper in Continental Philosophy. I asked
for comments, and recieved permission to forward his comments to the
list. Here it is:
Forwarded message:
> From [email protected] Sat Apr 19 18:02:57 1997
> From: "Ronald M. Carrier" <[email protected]>
> Good afternoon.
> Thanks for forwarding this to me. I've taken a look at it, and it seems
> to me to be a good introductory indication of what Nietzsche was up to.
> There are just three points on which I'd like to offer a bit of
> clarification.
>
> (1) Nietzsche as "anti-systematic" thinker: this is something that is
> also referred to when Nietzsche is called a "perspectival" thinker.
> Nietzsche thinks that thinking was an activity that is ultimately in the
> service of life, where "life" is a process of discovering and developing
> one's capacities for acting to the fullest. (And on this understanding
> of life, thinking would itself be one of these capacities for acting.)
> For Nietzsche, to develop a system is to develop a perspective, and so to
> develop a certain way of living. Indeed, he regards systems primarily as
> _symptoms_ of various ways of living.
>
> What he dislikes about systems is that they are perspectives that are, so
> to speak, monopolistic--they are ways of thinking (and, in the end, ways
> of living) to which everyone must submit themselves and which deny that
> there are other ways of thinking and living that may be better suited for
> someone. Nietzsche is anti-system in that he thinks that life is best
> served if one is able to develop in oneself the capacity for multiple
> perspectives, multiple ways of thinking and living. Nietzsche himself
> attempts to do this in his own writing--hence the aphoristic style of
> which he was fond. (This is not to say that Nietzsche was not capable of
> developing a sustained argument--_On_the_Genealogy_of_Morals_ does
> precisely this.)
>
> For Nietzsche, thinking best serves life and is symptomatic of life at
> its best (i.e. a life that is active and deals creatively with the
> circumstances that chance throws up for it, rather than one that is
> reactive and tries to minimize the role of chance and change in living)
> if it is the interplay of as many different perspectives as one can handle.
>
> (2) Nietzsche and evolution: I think it's good that the author pointed
> out the connections that can be made between Nietzsche and contemporary
> evolutionary biology. Nietzsche did not think much of Darwin, but this
> is not so much because he disagreed with what Darwin wrote (I'm not sure
> whether he had read Darwin himself or not) as because he disagreed with
> what others tended to make of what Darwin wrote (or what they supposed he
> wrote). Nietzsche disagrees, not with Darwin's notion of natural
> selection, but with the popular notion of evolution (a notion which
> Darwin did not himself employ in his works).
>
> "Evolution" presupposes that what organisms there are and what they are
> like is something that is predetermined and that inexorably unfolds
> across time. Natural selection, even in Darwin, is incompatible with
> evolution in this sense because natural selection posits chance and
> change as both ineliminable and necessary to the process of speciation.
> And as I pointed out above, Nietzsche thinks that chance and change are
> ineliminable from life and necessary for the development of life at its
> best. "Evolution" also involves the idea that there is some one best way
> of life that is the unavoidable outcome of evolution, namely whatever way
> of being human that the "evolutionary" thinker thinks is best. This is
> for Nietzsche a reactive way of thinking.
>
> But while Nietzsche's way of thinking is compatible with contemporary
> evolutionary biology, I think it's misleading to claim that his
> understanding of life is "biological." Nietzsche thinks that biology
> plays an ineliminable and necessary part in life, but he also thinks that
> life is more than just a matter of biology. (Nietzsche was suspicious of
> science because he thought that it too aspired to be a system in the
> sense of a monopolistic perspective. In other words, he disliked scientism.)
>
> (3) Authoritarian v. libertarian: The author claims that these are
> contradictory positions in Nietzsche. I don't think they are. They
> would be contradictory if Nietzsche held that everybody was equally
> capable of attaining to life at its best. Nietzsche is _very_ clear in
> his denial of this. He thinks that reactive thinking and living is
> typical of the great mass of people and suitable for them. They are able
> to live as well as they do precisely because a confinement to one
> perspective suits them--expose them to the possibility that their
> perspective is not suitable for all, and they will fall into despair
> (because from their perspective the way of life they lead must be
> suitable either for all or for none).
>
> Only a very few are, in Nietzsche's view, capable of thinking and living
> actively. Insofar as the ideal political arrangement would be one that
> would discover and cultivate these active few and put them in positions
> where they could do their best, while letting everybody else get along
> more or less as their reactive lives permit, it would be libertarian for
> the best and authoritarian for the rest. To the extent that
> libertarianism presupposes equality of nature, Nietzsche is not a
> libertarian; to the extent that authoritarianism is based on a reactive
> way of life to which both master and slave are beholden, Nietzsche is not
> an authoritarian. His politics are, if anything, those of Aristotle in
> the _Politics_. (This is not terribly surprising--Nietzsche was a
> philologist by training and so had a wide familiarity with ancient Greek
> writings.)
>
> HTH.
>
> Later...
>
> --
> Ronald M. Carrier -- [email protected]
> Graduate Student in Philosophy, Northwestern U.
> "Philosophy--I'm only in it for the money."